zhang_2011 ========== J\. Zhang and Z\. H\. Lu, "Reply to 'Comment on the precision refractive index measurements of air, N2, O2, Ar, and CO2 with a frequency comb'", Appl\. Opt\. 50, 6486 \(2011\) `Source record `__ · :doc:`Catalogue ` · :doc:`Review register ` No DOI is recorded. **Source kind:** measurement **Recorded technique:** A one\-page reply, no measurements\. **Materials in structured entries:** None recorded. **Dataset quantities:** None recorded. **Contents:** 0 datasets; 0 formulas. Curation notes -------------- The library record is unverified \(no DOI found\); the citation is from the page's own footer \(0003\-6935/11/356486\-01, Appl\. Opt\. 50, issue 35, published 2 December 2011\) and its reference list\. It replies to Kren's comment \(kren\_2011\) on Zhang, Lu and Wang, Appl\. Opt\. 47, 3143 \(2008\) \(zhang\_2008\)\. It holds no values and no corrected coefficients\: nothing is extracted\. What it says \(p\. 1\)\: the synthetic\-air, N2 and O2 dispersions are consistent 'if the oxygen concentration of the synthetic air is just slightly above the value given by the vendor'; 'the oxygen data are less reliable since we use the older National Bureau of Standards \(NBS\) compressibility factor'; 'our results in principle are only valid between 740 nm and 860 nm\. They are extrapolated to 633 nm so that we can compare with Birch's results'; the possible effect of oxygen absorption near 760 nm 'could not \[be observed\] with our apparatus at that time'\. These cautions bear on zhang\_2008's oxygen formula and its use outside 740\-860 nm\. **Recorded bibliographic identity status:** VALIDATED\_WITH\_WARNINGS. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents. Datasets -------- No datasets are recorded. Formulas -------- No formulas are recorded. Corrections ----------- No dataset errata are recorded in this source record. Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the :doc:`review register ` for the checks and decisions.